Spencer Keys

The Notebook

1 note &

And the sequel

A week went by, then I had another moment of inspiration…

Once upon a Sunday dreary, while I studied weak and weary,
Over many a quaint and curious volume of judicial lore,
There I nodded, always canning, I would rather have been tanning,
With the palm fronds gently fanning, fanning while I grab a snore.
Fouldes v Willoughby,” I muttered, “Conversion is such a bore –
Two more cases, nothing more.”

Ah, distinctly I remember it was in the bleak December,
I cursed myself for September when I had yet twelve weeks more.
Eagerly I wished the morrow; stupidly I tried to borrow
CANs from friends of equal sorrow – sorrow for their poor labor –
For their sad and disappointing excuse for legal labor –
Nameless procrastinator.

And these cases, with volition, had made it their very mission,
To imprison me, totally, without access through a door.
So now as I read word by word, all the arguments found in Bird,
And Campbell, and Roberts and Herd; Herd, which I’d never read before.
False imprisonment cases, handed down from the age of yore,
Left me wanting nothing more.

Deep in Bettel, the convention, you require basic intention;
Harmful contact’s all that’s needed for the litigator.
Also, foreseeability, carries some culpability,
For the tort’s liability, you liable tortfeasor.
Every possible claim for damages placed on the court’s floor -
Special damage, nothing more.

Torts gives you theory aplenty, essay word length – ten times twenty,
Thinking about the future based on the torts that came before.
Should discrimination be one? Or is the tort law almost done?
New causes of action are fun, fun but for the tortfeasor.
Yet dignitary interest of victims you can’t ignore,
Victims matter – nothing more!

Soon I started to get dozy, for in the books I was nose deep,
When I caught myself in the middle of a rather loud snore.
Through bleary eyes, I saw a ghost, a blonde-haired raven was its host,
I saw the Gooldish raven coast, coast through the wide open door.
“What do you mean by that?” it asked, then it settled on the floor,
Watching fiercely and no more.

“What must you have done to defame?” “Does it help if the words are tame?”
Questions kept coming until I couldn’t take it anymore.
It was a phantom, this I knew, but real it felt, both real and true,
Telling me of defendants who, who caused a tortious furore.
Frustrated, I threw at the raven a can of albacore.
Quoth the raven, “Tortfeasor!”

“Phantom!” said I, “Thing of evil! – phantom still, if prof or devil! –
Whether madness sent, or whether it came from some Aussie shore,
Torts isn’t gym! I declare it! These case details – I can’t bear it!
A failing grade?! I will wear it! Wear it like a pinafore!
Leave me be, and let me vacation on a tropical shore!”
Quoth the raven, “Tortfeasor!”

And the phantom, never flitting, still is sitting, while I’m shitting,
Bricks of stress and fear, fear and stress all over my bedroom floor.
Is it that I really fear him? Or is this avoidance of Crim?
For it’s that course where things are grim, grim cuz I didn’t CAN more.
Exams will be done and next term it’s negligence we’ll explore.
And then torts, nevermore!

Filed under law school lawschool lawschooled

1 note &

A Law School Poem

A product of my procrastination this exam season…

Twas the night before Contracts – throughout all the class,
Students were cramming, Gilbert Steel to Hillas.
CANs were printed, collated, and tabbed best they could,
In hopes they’d got the ratio of Eastwood.

The professors were sleeping; they’d no need to hedge,
Or memorize Fraser River Pile & Dredge.
And Bruce in his plaid – Joel Bakan with his nails –
Dreamed of Foakes v Beer, but not sweet winter ales.

Rising and thrashing up from these patterns of fact,
Was that scary question, is there a contract?
There’s offer? Acceptance? And consideration?
Intent to create a legal relation?

Terms on the last form is from Butler Machine Tool,
Or is that one the parole evidence rule?
Postal acceptance can be a bit of a tease,
Its rule’s clear, but for Holwell Securities.

I’ll forget one case, tomorrow in Allard Hall,
It can’t be Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball!
You may think that my anxieties are mere puff,
But I know I don’t get that estoppel stuff.

Now Barrick! Now Byrne! Now Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre!
On Callisher! On Clarke! On, on Household Fire!
To privity! To seals! To forebearance of rights!
Both Beswick v Beswicks are now in my sights!

Tweddle v Atkinson is a fun one to say,
But means that third parties will not get their day.
Consideration needs value, more than just sass,
Says the old English case, Thomas v Thomas.

Maybe Contracts is not something worthy of hate,
I can finally read Lampleigh v Brathwait!
Boring? Perhaps, but with a clear purpose and thrust.
Well, until Central London Property Trust.

I think that I’ll pass, the curve will keep me alive,
I’ll probably just get a seventy-five.
But in the event your test feels like a strafe,
“Happy winter exams! Thank Goold they’re fail-safe!”

Filed under lawschool law school lawschooled

0 notes &

Long time, no Tumbls. Anyway, I saw this today and thought it’s a useful video to think about not only when designing a website or application, but almost any communication piece that is intended to leverage an action out of a (perhaps fleeting) interest in your product (whatever or whoever that may be).

56 notes &

A business meeting

mymorna:

(Translated from this blog: Alex Aka JJ LJ. Originally, this story was published by Alex in Russian. The translation is mine, sorry for any inaccuracies. Suggestions for improvements are very appreciated.)

Smith attended the meeting on Tuesday. There, he himself and his brain both died a slow and painful death, brought onto them by the other attendees, with Smith’s manager Lehare as leading murderer.

“Gentlemen,” said mrs. Redroot, “Our organization is facing a major challenge. We’re dealing with a project, for which we must depict several red lines. Are you willing to take on this assignment?”

“Of course”, Lehare said. As the company’s CEO  he was always willing to take on problems that would be solved by someone else of the team. However, he instantly clarified: “We can do that, can’t we?”

The manager of the drawing department, Greyskin, quickly nodded: “Yes, definitely. This is Smith, our best specialist on the drawing of red lines. We’ve invited him to this meeting for exactly this reason, to hear his competent opinion on the subject.”

“Nice to meet you,” mrs. Redroot threw him a smile.  “Well, you all know me. And this is Lily, our company’s specialist in the area of design.” Lily blushed and smiled self-consciously. She just obtained her economics degree and knew about as much of design as a platypus knows of the design of airships.

“In short,” Mrs. Redroot continued, “we must draw seven straight red lines. They must all be strictly perpendicular. Furthermore, some of them must be green and some transparent. What do you think, would that be realistic?”

Read More

2,805 notes &

storyboard:

Meet the Mind Behind Barack Obama’s Online Persona
You’ve most definitely seen it by now. Michelle Obama, wearing a red-and-white checkered dress, stands with her back to the camera. Her arms are wrapped around her husband, the hints of a smile lingering on the edges of his lips. “Four more years,” reads the text, which was posted on the Obama campaign’s social media accounts around 11:15pm on election night‚ just as it became clear the president had won a second term. 
The photo, taken by campaign photographer Scout Tufankjian just a few days into the job, pretty much won the internet: 816,000 retweets, the most likes ever on Facebook; thousands of reblogs on Tumblr. And yet it wasn’t chosen by the president’s press secretary, or even a senior-level operative, but by 31-year-old Laura Olin, a social media strategist who’d been up since 4am. For the first time since the campaign ended, she talked to Tumblr, in partnership with The Daily Beast, about what it’s like being the voice of the President — where millions of people, and a ravenous press, await your every grammatical error.
So how does it actually work, being the voice of the President? Who makes the decisions about what to post?
All of our decisions were made in-house — in Chicago, mostly — so we weren’t getting direct directives from the White House or anything. But we tried as much as possible to have voices for each account, so depending on the message — because we had all these channels — we had an appropriate place to put it. Obviously some stuff was sufficiently huge so that it went everywhere, but as much as possible we tried to tailor the message for the channel and the audience.
It must be daunting.
It was kind of terrifying, actually. My team ran the Barack Obama Twitter handle, which I think was probably most susceptible to really embarrassing and silly mistakes. We didn’t ever really have one, which I still can’t believe we pulled off.
Read More

storyboard:

Meet the Mind Behind Barack Obama’s Online Persona

You’ve most definitely seen it by now. Michelle Obama, wearing a red-and-white checkered dress, stands with her back to the camera. Her arms are wrapped around her husband, the hints of a smile lingering on the edges of his lips. “Four more years,” reads the text, which was posted on the Obama campaign’s social media accounts around 11:15pm on election night‚ just as it became clear the president had won a second term. 

The photo, taken by campaign photographer Scout Tufankjian just a few days into the job, pretty much won the internet: 816,000 retweets, the most likes ever on Facebook; thousands of reblogs on Tumblr. And yet it wasn’t chosen by the president’s press secretary, or even a senior-level operative, but by 31-year-old Laura Olin, a social media strategist who’d been up since 4am. For the first time since the campaign ended, she talked to Tumblr, in partnership with The Daily Beast, about what it’s like being the voice of the President — where millions of people, and a ravenous press, await your every grammatical error.

So how does it actually work, being the voice of the President? Who makes the decisions about what to post?

All of our decisions were made in-house — in Chicago, mostly — so we weren’t getting direct directives from the White House or anything. But we tried as much as possible to have voices for each account, so depending on the message — because we had all these channels — we had an appropriate place to put it. Obviously some stuff was sufficiently huge so that it went everywhere, but as much as possible we tried to tailor the message for the channel and the audience.

It must be daunting.

It was kind of terrifying, actually. My team ran the Barack Obama Twitter handle, which I think was probably most susceptible to really embarrassing and silly mistakes. We didn’t ever really have one, which I still can’t believe we pulled off.

Read More